handling qualites of canard

8/4/2019 Handling Qualites of Canard

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/handling-qualites-of-canard 1/49

NASA Technical h/lem&andum 88354

A Look at Handling Qualities of

Canard ConfigurationsSeth B. Anderson

&BSA -TB - 8 d 3 5 4 ) A LCCK AT f i A l i C L I I N G 1a3-226 2 9

C A L I l I E S OF C A k A E C C C R E I G U E P l X N S (NASA)

9 p A v a i l : NTIS HC A03/EJ A 0 1 CSCL 0 1 A0 3 IJaclasW/02 0076329

September 1986

LIBRARV e 6PV

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTERLIBRARY, NASA

HRMPTON, VIRGINIAI

NASANational Aeronautics and

Space Administration



NA SA Technical M emorandum 88354

A Look at Handling Qualities of

Canard ConfigurationsSeth B. Anderson, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

September 1986

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Ames ResearchCenterMoffett Field, California94035



A LOOK AT HANDLING QUALITIES OF CANARD CONFIGURATIONS

Seth B. Anderson*

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Abstract

The first human-powered flight was achieved by a canard-configured air-

craft (Wright Brothers).

varying degrees of success over the years, the tail-aft configuration has

dominated the aircraft market for both military and civil use.

reviews the development of several canard aircraft with emphasis on stability

and control, handling qualities, and operating problems. The results show

that early canard concepts suffered adversely in flight behavior because of a

lack of understanding of the sensitivities of these concepts to basic stabil-

ity and control principles. Modern canard designs have been made competitive

with tail-aft configurations by using appropriate handling qualities design

criteria.

Although other canard concepts were flown with

This paper

Introduction

A wide variety of canard designs have been proposed and flown over the

years with varying degrees of success. ’ Recently, the canard arrangement has

Presented at AIAA 12th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,

Snowmass, CO, August 19-21, 1985.

*Associate Fellow AIAA.

1



shown a sharp rise in popularity, starting in the home-built (experimental

category) and carrying on to military fighters and short-haul commuter

designs.

ular aerodynamic concept, including ( 1 ) the potential for increased perfor-

mance in terms of an expanded highllow speed operating range or increased

maneuverability (tied in with mission requirements); (2) newly available

structural materials that favor a specific design layout (use of aeroelasti-

cally tailored composites); and ( 3 ) potential improvements in handling quali-

ties for safer operating characteristics (better stall behavior).

There may be several reasons for a change in popularity of a partic-

Recent articles in the popular press have extolled the virtues of

canards, pointing out that because canards provide positive lift, a higher

C results, the aircraft can be smaller with less drag, and safety isLmax

improved because of natural aerodynamic angle of attack (AOA) limiting.

more technical papers2 which have examined optimization of canard designs

based primarily on performance have indicated no advantage of foreplanes when

normal stability and structural weight considerations are accounted for.

Although a canard-configured aircraft was the first recognized successful

example of human-controlled powered flight (Wright Brothers), tail-aft designs

have dominated the aircraft market for both military and civil use for reasons

which are not readily apparent.

involved in optimizing a given concept, this paper concentrates on handling

qualities of the canards since this factor strongly influences pilot accep-

tance. By examining the handling qualities of canard configurations, a

clearer understanding of the relative merits could evolve along with some

feeling for future trends.

Other

In recognition that many tradeoffs are

The scope of the paper includes an initial discussion of the basic sta-

bility and control requirements needed for both canard and aft tail designs

2



with particular concern for the interrelationship with performance.

guidelines are established for desired handling qualities, a review is made of

selected canard aircraft to reflect on reasons for the success or failure of

some types.

After

Discussion

In the first part of the discussion, factors that influence stability and

control are reviewed in a general sense to show how various levels of stabil-

ity and control relate to pilot opinion of aircraft response.

the effects of fore or aft tail location, primary emphasis is placed upon

longitudinal (pitch) characteristics, recognizing that lateral/directional

behavior can be influenced also by tail placement.

In discussing

Stability and Control Considerations

Stability can be obtained for any planform configuration by locating the

center of gravity (c.g.) ahead of the aerodynamic center (a.c.).

range available is configuration-dependent and is affected by tail size (area)

and location. In a stable conventional aircraft, the forward c.g. limit is

determined primarily by the ability of the tail to raise the nose wheel for

lift-off. The aft c.g. location is determined by stability considerations

usually slightly ahead of the neutral point. The adverse consequences of a

c.g. location too far aft can arise insidiously; the aircraft may diverge

(slow up) from the trim speed to the stall where in some cases full nose-down

pitch control will not increase airspeed (lower AOA) and provide a safe recov-

ery, particularly at low altitude. For a canard configuration, the forward

c.g. location could remain the same provided similar tail area and moment arm

The c.g.

3



are used.

forward, the c.g. range for stability is considerably reduced. Increasing

However, since the canard effectively moves the center of lift

canard area moves c.g. limits forward and increases the available c.g.

range. Geometric considerations result in the practical c.g. range being

located ahead of the wing leading edge with the canard carrying a greater unit

load than the wing and demanding a relatively high C . To reduce its

destabilizing effect, a low lift curve slope would be desired with due consid-

Lmax

eration to induced drag of this heavily loaded surface. Historically, it has

not been feasible to provide sufficient trim capability to use wing flaps on a

canard aircraft, and flatter approach angles are common.

Dynamic longitudinal stability characteristics also depend upon config-

uration layout and c.g. location. They are important to the pilot because of

concern for possible oscillatory divergences in AOA or airspeed when the

aircraft is disturbed. Many studies have examined the effect of variations in

dynamic stability and damping on precision of flight path control.

in Fig. 1 summarize pilots' comments3 of the effects of variations in stabil-

ity with damping. The results indicate that an aircraft is most pleasant to

fly when stability levels are neither too high nor too low and sufficient

The data

damping is available.

Although it is generally agreed that positive stability is desirable,

neutral or negative stability is not categorically disastrous. The amount of

pilot attention required for control increases as static stability decreases

and the pilot must add "lead" to the control inputs, thereby increasing

workload. The degree of instability permissible for safe operation depends

upon several interrelated factors, including the type of aircraft, mission,

task, amount of turbulence, pitch damping, etc. Pilot opinion4 relating to

control of an unstable aircraft in landing approach is shown in Fig. 2 in

4



terms of the variation in pilot rating with time to double amplitude (T2).

rapid deterioration in pilot rating occurs as stability is decreased because

A

the pilot must constantly devote his or her attention to attitude control.

Note that in these tests periods greater than approximately 6 sec showed no

significant improvement in pilot rating nor was a satisfactory rating ever

obtained for the basic aircraft (no artificial pitch damping provided).

Tail-plane location can significantly affect stall characteristics, from

the standpoint of providing satisfactory stall recovery control and adequate

stall warning. Specifications governing stall behavior require the aircraft

to have mild roll, pitch, and yaw motions (less than 20") in stalled flight.

In addition, it is desired that no pitch-up tendencies occur, and it should be

possible to prevent and recover from the stall by moderate use of the pitch

control alone.

tible warning (shaking of the cockpit controls, buffeting or shaking of the

The stall approach should be accompanied by an easily percep-

airplane, or a combination of both).

Although stall usually corresponds to maximum lift coefficient, low-

aspect-ratio planforms may have extremely nonlinear lift curve slopes where

buffet, wing rock, directional divergence, and Dutch roll oscillations may

precede the AOA for C by over 20" to 30". When a control limit sets

minimum permissible speed, some indication or warning of the impending lack of

flight path control may not occur.

encounters a second stable trim point at high AOA where reduced control effec-

L

A problem may result when an aircraft

tiveness may not provide recovery to unstalled flight.

figurations, the foreplane is designed to reach its maximum lift capability

before the wing stalls to prevent pitch-up.

For most canard con-

Of course, dangerously high AOA

5



penetrations can occur even with good canard airfoil aerodynamics if the aft

c.g. limit is violated.

With the aformentioned stability and control (handling qualities) consid-

erations in mind, it is of interest to briefly examine several canard aircraft

and reflect on the reasons for success or failure of some types.

Historical Overview

The popularity of canard concepts has fluctuated over the years. At the

start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers canard

design; however, only tail aft configurations were produced during the WW I

years, 1914-1918, and only a few copies of canard designs invaded the market

for the next 50 years. In those early days of flight, most aircraft were

designed and built without the benefit of wind tunnel tests, and documentation

of stability and control characteristics did not exist. The first systematic

stability and control flight test results were conducted by NACA' in 1919

using a Curtiss JN4H aircraft.

with pilot opinion did not take place until the late 1930s. 6Handling qualities measurements correlated

Although a great number of canard-equipped aircraft have flown throughout

the years, it is only recently that stability and control data have become

available to provide a clearer understanding of the relative merits of this

concept.

demonstrated successful flight are reviewed.

As a result, only a select few of the many canard concepts that have

In the early struggles to achieve powered flight, the canard concept

proved to be popular. The Wright Brothers designed their 1903 canard "Flyer"

by appropriately blending knowledge of structures, power plant, and aerodynam-

ics to construct a machine that had enough power to offset the drag and

6



sufficient control to trim over a wide AOA range. They did not, however,

understand or appreciate the need for stability and this was reflected in

problems encountered in developing their concept.

unstable longitudinally and laterally, but also the elevator hinge moments

were overbalanced, and large adverse yaw complicated turn entries.

Not only was their aircraft

An examination of a two-view drawing of the 1905 aircraft (Fig. 3 )

reveals features which are of special interest from the stability and control

(handling qualities) standpoint. Foremost is the use of the foreplane, which

led to the configuration coined "canard," a French word for a hoax or tall

story. In fact, their accomplishment of powered flight was not completely

believed until Wilber Wright demonstrated their aircraft in many European

countries in 1908. The reason for the choice of the canard control was not

based upon measured data (the Wrights' wind tunnel tests did not include

pitching moment), but more upon intuitive reasoning.

most in their minds.7

uration had an intrinsic danger that was associated with Lilienthal's loss of

control and death while flying his glider in 1896.

Good control was upper-

Wilber had expressed a concern that an aft tail config-

The stall behavior of their aircraft was never well documented. The

relatively constant chord planform would normally provide good stall charac-

teristics by virtue of center-section flow breakdown, except that downwash

from the canard would unload the wing root area and tend to cause loss of

lateral stability at stall. Stalls had been encountered in the 1901 glider

(configured similarly to the 1903 powered vehicle), which was observed to

"mush" to the ground with little damage. A more serious stall did occur with

the 1903 Flyer when Wilber allowed the aircraft to pitch up to the stall in a

moment of confusion when he inadvertently stopped the engine.

occurred at low altitude, resulting in a nose-down impact with considerable

The stall

7



damage, b u t Wilber was n o t h u r t . T he n os e-do wn b e h a v io r is n o r m a l l y a desi red

s t a l l r e c o v e r y r e s p o n s e , e x c e p t when f l y i n g c l o s e t o t h e g r o u n d .

8P u r s u i n g t h e p i t c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f u r t h e r , r e c e n t data o b t a i n e d o n a

on e- e ig h th -sc a le model showt h a t

p i t c h i n g m oment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c swere

rela-

t i v e l y l i n e a r up t o C . I n f ac t , a p i t c h down a t t h e s t a l l n o r m a l l yLmax

associated w i t h a c an ar d c o n t r o l l o s i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s ( b y s t a l l i n g before t h e

win g ) is n o t e v i d en t .

l o c a t i o n u se d. I n t h e W r i g h t s ' case, t h e c . g . was n o t far enough forward t o

h i g h l y l o a d t h e c a n a rd a n d c a u s e i t t o s t a l l f i r s t .

h a v e w a nt ed m ore s t a b i l i t y , i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o move t h e c . g . f a r t h e r

forward b e c a u s e of t h e i n a b i l i t y t o trim o u t t h e l a r g e n ose-do wn p i t c h i n g

moment associated wi th t h e h i g h l y cambered a i r f o i l .

F l i g h t s t a l l b e h a v i o r w o u l d be al tered by t h e c . g .

A l t h o u g h t h e Wrig h t s ma y

I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t

e v e n th o u g h t h e flyer was h i g h l y u n s t a b l e , a l a r g e u p lo a d o n t h e c a n ar d was

r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e trim at a c r u i s e CL of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 .6 .

The F l y e r ' s i n s t a b i l i t y was a major h a nd l in g q u a l i t i e s p ro bl em as e v i -

"Thee n c e d f ro m c omme nts b y O r v i l l e Wr ig h t i n a l e t t e r to Wilber i n 1909.

d i f f i c u l t y i n h a nd li ng o u r m ac hi ne is d u e t o r u d d e r ( h o r i z o n t a l t a i l or

c a n a r d ) b e i n g i n f l ' o n t , w h i c h m a k e s i t hard to k e e p o n a l e v e l c o u r s e .

w a nt t o c l i m b you must f i r s t g i v e t h e f r o n t r ud d er a l a r g e r a n g l e , b u t imme-

d i a t e l y t h e m a c hi n e b e g i n s t o r ise y o u m u s t r e v e r s e t h e r u d d e r a n d g i v e a

smaller a n g l e .

i t n e c e s s a r y t o l e n g th e n t h e m a c h i n e b u t to s i m p l y p u t t h e r u d d e r b e h i n d

i n s t e a d o f before." From t h e r e c e n t w in d t u n n e l data i t was estimated t h a t

t h e y were f l y i n g w i t h a n e g a t i v e s t a t i c ma rg in of a p p r o x i m a t e l y -20%.

d e r i v e d p i t c h dynam ic s t a b i l i t y show ed t h a t t h e shor t p e r i o d mode was a p e r i -

I f you

The machine is a l w a y s i n u n s t a b l e e q u i l i b r i u m . I do n o t t h i n k

The

o d i c a n d d ou b le d a m p l it u d e i n a b o u t 0.5 see. This c a l c u l a t e d d i v e r g e n c e ra te

is c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r th a n t h a t j u d g e d a c c e p t a b l e from t h e data shown i n

8



Fig. 2. In reality, the behavior would be subdued by apparent mass and iner-

tia effects. A skilled pilot could learn to cope with this behavior, but

undoubtedly the pilot workload was high.

As their flights progressed, the Wrights recognized the need for more

stability.

moment balance, they were able to add 70 lb of cast iron at the nose to

improve stability. Eventually, one of the canard surfaces was moved to the

rear and made movable, improving stability so that hands-off flight was

possible.

By reducing the wing camber and providing a more favorable hinge

The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal

and early attempts at turning flight were fraught with danger.

was not until September 1904 that a 360° turn was accomplished.

problem was lateral stability.

1800 was known to produce positive lateral stability, the Wrights chose to use

anhedral because their glider experiments had shown adverse bank angle effects

when flying in ground effect in cross wind operation with positive dihedral.

Although anhedral tended to help the airplane turn by virtue of an unstable

spiral mode, Wilbur noted in his diary, "Unable to stop turning." It was

fortunate that directional stability (C

In fact, it

Part of the

Although dihedral invented by Cayley9 around

) was neutral to low, since a largeN e

would have aggravated the spiral instability. In part, the poor yawc N 8

(turn) behavior was due to the interconnect system used to improve turn

entry. The Wrights discovered early in their glider tests that wing warping

provided good roll effectiveness, but it also produced adverse yaw. By inter-

connecting the rudder with wing warp, adverse yaw effects were reduced, but

yaw control power was marginal. In 1905 they decided to operate the rudder

control independently with improved turn capability.

9



Although the 1903 Flyer did achieve success in ushering in the era of

powered flight, the canard concept did not appear to have enough merit to

prevail beyond 1910. The 1911 model B aircraft had a conventional (aft) tail.

One of the historically prominent canard designs was the XP-55 Curtiss

fighter. The tail-first pusher, called "Ascender", was one of several novel

designs that stemmed from a 1940 Army Air Corps request to generate new, high-

performance, unorthodox fighters which would be superior to the best European

designs. A three-view drawing of this concept (Fig. 4) and an in-flight view

(Fig. 5) reveal several advanced aerodynamic features which were unproven from

a handling qualities standpoint in the early 1940s.

aspect-ratio, all-moving canard pitch control, a moderately swept wing, and

rudders mounted near the wing tips.

primarily for good stall behavior (discussed later), but for pitch control,

improved visibility, and more efficient gun installations.

appreciated that this aircraft was designed without the benefit of adequate

handling qualities specifications to cover high AOA behavior.

incorporated, not for transonic flow benefits (drag reduction), but to provide

an aft location for the vertical fins for directional stability and control.

These included a low-

The foreplane location was not selected

It should be

Wing sweep was

Of the many handling qualities deficiencies, the most infamous was its

ominous stall behavior.

satisfactory in that the canard surface lost nose-up trim effectiveness with

increasing AOA and the aircraft pitched down for stall recovery.

pull up to the stall, however, the XP-55 pitched down abruptly to an inverted

position which defied recovery. On this occasion, the engine stopped, and

after losing 16,000 ft in a vertical free fall, the pilot safely escaped (no

ejection seat available).

had been predicted by small-scale wind tunnel tests.

The slow, steady approach to the stall was considered

In a dynamic

The inverted highly stable "deep stall" trim point

The near-vertical (high

10



negative AOA) flight path is attested to by the nearly intact inverted air-

craft wreckage (Fig. 6).

To improve the poor high AOA behavior, a second Ascender was modified

with extended wing tips, wing fences, and small lttraileronsl'utboard of the

wing-mounted rudders. The stall behavior of the "improved" XP-55 is best

described by the following comments made by pilot Brig. Gen. Benjamin S.

Kelsey, USAF (Ret. . lo

"The slow, steady stall was quite satisfactory, and the plane

behaved normally in the usual intentional maneuvers. Because some

aircraft have different characteristics when a stall is initiated

abruptly, I tried a sharp pullup. The nose came up rapidly to a

very high angle, and forward nose-down control was ineffective in

checking the pitch-up.

pletely confusing out-of-control gyrations.

sort of spin developed from which recovery was possible.

What happened next was a series of com-

Eventually a wobbly

"After tryinga

few more violent stalls, all of which went

through the same out-of-control contortions, I thought I knew what

happend, but I am still not sure. Initially the plane, without the

damping of a conventional tail to slow the rate of pitch, came up

to such a steep angle that the forward elevator could not be moved

enough to get any down force on the nose. What must have followed

was a stall with the nose pointed nearly straight up.

and the beginning of a rolling motion was fairly clear.

This much

"Assuming that with the swept wing, one side or the other

stalled first, the plane did a kind of twisting cartwheel, first

rotating about the fuselage and then pivoting on one wingtip. As

1 1



it went over the top in something like a hammerhead stall, the top

advancing wing seemed to roll the plane partially onto its back.

This rotation of the aircraft about its fuselage axis and in the

plane of the wing was like an autorotation spin except that the

axis of the spiral was falling through the horizontal so that it

was probably more nearly a very wobbly snap roll. With the rudder

surfaces located on the wingtips and the fin surface close to the

center of gravity over the engine, these vertical surfaces weren't

effective in slowing the spinning.

"All of this occurred in very rapid sequence, and nothing was

effective until a recognizable spin had developed. If one visual-

izes the movements of outside references--the horizon, sky, and

earth--it will be readily apparent that the pilot was in no posi-

tion to provide a precise description of what went on."

This aircraft has the potential for an unusual out-of-control dynamic

pitch behavior, "tumbling," which has been identified by model tests" for

some concepts during World War I1 ( W W 11). Tumbling, defined as a sustained

autorotative pitching motion, has been found to more likely occur for tailless

and tail-first (canard) configurations with low pitch inertia, low pitch

static stability, and high-aspect-ratio wings.

figurations could not be made to tumble in model tests. Tumbling was ini-

tiated from a nose-up attitude (AOA = -180O) to simulate a whip stall.

showed that the XP-55 model would pitch down and sustain an irregular tumbling

motion regardless of pitch control position.

canard surface had a detrimental effect on tumbling, suggesting that pitch

damping was not the primary factor involved. Rather, the decrease in pitch

Conventional ( tail-aft) con-

Tests

Increasing the size of the

12



stability caused by adding area head of the c.g. appeared to dominate the

tumbling tendency. It would be expected that lateral or directional control

inputs causing asymmetry in the lateral/directional axes would induce motions

similar to those described in stall recovery attempts.

This aircraft configuration was even more amazing when one considers that

swept-wing technology had not been "discovered" yet. It was 1945 before U.S.

engineers visited Germany and noted that swept-wing planforms were being used

to reduce transonic flow-separation problems (drag rise) on aircraft such as

the ME163. Low directional stability, a lightly damped Dutch. roll mode, and

poor pitch dynamics all contributed to the demise of the XP-55 aircraft. In

retrospect, it was unfortunate that the higher subsonic Mach number character-

istics could not have been explored, allowing the U.S. to demonstrate the

well-proven performance benefits of swept-wing technology.

success, the XP-55 canard should be given credit for being the first fighter

to identify the deep stall problem, an event not to be encountered by another

fighter until some 15 years later.

Although not a

The next canard concept, the VariEze, designed in 1974, incorporated

several advanced design features which shared in establishing a new wave of

popularity for the canard concept.

smooth (low-drag) contours, the canard and wing system was carefully designed

to provide passive stall control by limiting the ability to trim above the AOA

for wing stall. Notable features shown in a three-view drawing (Fig. 7 )

include a high-aspect-ratio canard mounted slightly above the wing chord

plane, a considerable amount of wing sweep, and winglets for directional

stability and control.

area drag), has good performance and handling qualities.

In addition to the use of composites for

This design, which is very compact (minimum wetted-

13



The VariEze aircraft had few stability and control problems over its

development history.

the canard to simplify control layout. This elevon control system was dis-

carded because of roll-control problems.

relatively minor rigging errors in setting wing incidence and inadvertent

built-in twist could overpower the available roll control.'2 In two cases,

full roll control and rudder assist was required to remain upright in first

flights around the pattern. In another case, during landing approach in

turbulence, the pilot required large simultaneous roll and pitch commands for

flight path adjustments. Because of the inherent limitations in providing

large rolling moments with full elevator control, the aircraft was damaged in

touchdown. Incorporating roll control on the canard is basically less

efficient because of an adverse downwash influence on the main wing opposing

the canard rolling-moment input. Moving the ailerons to the main wing greatly

improved roll control power even though an inboard aileron location was used.

An early version employed both pitch and roll control on

Early flight experience showed that

The potential danger of serious stall departure can occur when c.g.

location is mismanaged for either tail aft or canard configurations. An aft

c.g. position for early models of the VariEze allowed greater penetration into

stalled flight than desired. In several cases divergent wing rocking or roll-

off occurred as speed was reduced in the landing approach.

expected, if AOA is increased on the rear swept wing, outboard flow of the

boundary layer would induce flow separation on the outboard wing area causing

roll-off or pitch-up. A "fix" was obtained by protecting the outboard wing

area by reenergizing the boundary layer by a leading edge droop (disconti-

nuity) or a leading edge fence.

As would be

14



In general, the handling qualities of the VariEze aircraft have been

above average.

Langley 30- by 60-ft tunnel discussed next.

The reasons for this have been documented by testsJ3 in the

As noted previously, the placement of the canard, the airfoil section

employed, and canard geometry are key factors in providing good low-speed

behavior.

the AOA range where important flow effects occur.

at a relatively low AOA of approximately 4" where outboard flow of the bound-

ary layer degraded the lift of the wing, slightly reducing stability. The

second change in stability occurred near 14 " AOA where a significant increase

in stability resulted from canard stall and the associated reduction in down-

wash over the inboard wing area. This increase in nose-down pitching moment

The pitch stability characteristics of Fig. 8 show three areas in

The first change occurred

provides the desired passive stall limiting. A third change in stability at

2 2 O AOA is destabilizing (nose up ) , resulting from outboard flow separation on

the wing.

Canard pitch effectiveness is primarily a function of geometry (aspect

ratio) and airfoil section. A gradual (trailing edge) flow separation pattern

occurs on the VariEze canard at an AOA sufficiently below wing stall. The

effect of airfoil section on canard stall lift characteristics is important.

For example, a more abrupt stall (and lower C ) would occur with aLmax

NACA 0012 airfoil section. The gradual increase in lift beyond C for

this airfoil could cause a post-stall pitch-up tendency.

Lmax

With a rearward c.g.

position, a high AOA trim (deep stall) condition may occur from which recovery

may be impossible.

With the usual canard-wing planform geometry typified by the VariEze

aircraft, one might expect reduced directional stability and damping because

of the short moment arm to the vertical tail. Although increasing wing sweep

15



would improve directional characteristics, pitch stability and low-speed

performance would suffer adversely.

directional stability occurred in the AOA range of loo to 20° . Dihedral

effect, C , increased by a factor of 4 in the AOA range from 0 to 20°. The

combination of low CN and large C should result in a high roll to yaw,

lightly damped Dutch Roll behavior.

For the VariEze, a marked reduction in

a s

0

This has been manifested in wing rock

control problems at low approach speeds for early models.

Aileron effectiveness deteriorated markedly in the higher AOA range

(above 10'); this would be expected with the inboard location of the ailerons

as a result of the outboard boundary layer flow near the wing trailing edge

inherent in swept planforms. Rudder control effectiveness is relatively low

compared to a typical conventional configuration and also decreases markedly

in the higher AOA range.

in terms of the ability to achieve large steady state sideslip angles and to

decrab for touchdown.

This may compromise crosswind landing behavior both

A fourth interesting canard configuration using a relatively large fore-

plane is shown in a three-view drawing (Fig. 9 ) . This aircraft, the PAT-1

"Pugmobile" was designed as a production airplane (not experimental) using

composite structure providing a very smooth (low-drag) external surface. The

aircraft employs an aft low wing, tapered, with some leading edge sweep. The

foreplane, approximately one-third the wing area, has a full-span slotted

elevator for pitch control.

As will be shown, this layout inherently has a great challenge in meeting

pitch trim and control requirements because the foreplane and elevator control

is located to a large extent in the propeller slipstream.

canard aircraft use rear-mounted engines for many reasons (performance, noise,

etc.). Also, it is less difficult structurally to attach the foreplane to the

The majority of

16



fuselage in an area away from the engine compartment, and pitch trim changes

with power variations are reduced.

locations when the canard is more highly loaded as in landing approach where

more power is used.

employing a high-aspect-ratio (large span) canard where the elevator captures

a smaller percentage of slipstream area as evidenced in some tandem-wing

designs.

Large trim changes occur for forward c.g.

The pitch trim change with power can be reduced by

This aircraft configuration exemplifies potential stability and control

problems at stall. Most canard concepts provide inherent stall-limiting such

that the wing remains unstalled with satisfactory pitch behavior and con-

trol. It should be noted, however, that these highly desirable stall-

resistance characteristics depend upon the correct selection of certain design

variables for the foreplane, including airfoil shape; geometry (aspect ratio,

chord); relative location of the canard and wing; and, most important, c.g.

location.

In order to more clearly understand the aerodynamic stability and control

characteristics of canard configurations like the PAT-1, a one-third scale

model of a canard-configured general aviation aircraft was tested14 in the 30-

by 60-ft Langley Research Center tunnel. Tests indicated satifactory stall

behavior at the forward c.g. location. With power-off, the configuration was

stall-resistant in that longitudinal stability increased strongly as the

canard stalled (AOA = 12') and reduced pitch control effectiveness occurred

with increase in AOA. Although power-on tended to promote a pitch-up prior to

canard stall, reduced control effectiveness limited the maximum obtainable

AOA to 12O (less than wing stall).

With a rear c.g. location, the inherent passive stall-limiting features

of the canard essentially disappeared at high AOA, and pitch stability and

17



post-stall control recovery suffered adversely. Pitching moment data pre-

sented in Fig. 10 for various elevator deflections with power-off show a

marked reduction in nose-down pitch-control power at post-stall AOA, but

sufficient nose-down control was still available for recovery for the power-

off condition. Adding slipstream effects (power-on), however, further deteri-

orated stall behavior and post-stall control recovery characteristics.

indicated in Fig. 11 , a stable "deep stall" trim area existed in the AOA range

from 40" to 60°. Full nose-down control (AOA = -20") produced a small recov-

ery moment near 60" AOA; however, as AOA decreased to about 50", the recovery

moment was essentially zero.

recovery from the high AOA region.

As

As noted, power reductions would help promote

A clearer understanding of the adverse stability and control behavior due

to power were obtained from flow visualization studies. For propeller wind-

milling (power-off) conditions, flow separation began at the canard-fuselage

juncture, starting at 6" AOA, and spread rapidly spanwise to an abrupt stall

over the entire canard span at AOA of 12-14".

near the trailing edge at 14" AOA with an abrupt outer wing panel stall at

18". With power-on, the slipstream promoted attached flow at the canard-

fuselage juncture and on the wing inboard areas; however, a more abrupt flow

separation occurred for both surfaces at high AOA. These flow separation pat-

terns are such that in the AOA range of wing stall, propeller slipstream

increased canard lift at a given alpha and the resulting increased downwash on

the wing tended to decrease overall stability.

Wing flow separation started

The lateral/directional characteristics of this configuration are also of

interest because of canard-induced flow effects at high AOA with power-on.

relatively large directional trim change occurs in the AOA range for wing

A

stall along with a marked reduction in rudder control effectiveness and

18



directional stability in the post-stall region. These poor directional

characteristics result primarily from the low-energy stalled wing wake imping-

ing on the vertical tail.

AOA values because of flow separation in the area of the inboard ailerons.

Power effects tended to produce asymmetric wing stall and reductions in lat-

eral stability. The combined reductions in lateral and directional stability

and control in the post-stall AOA range would adversely affect recovery in the

deep-stall region.

Lateral control effectiveness was reduced at large

In summary, the example aircraft configuration clearly points out the

potential problems lurking at rear c.g. locations where various design varia-

bles can interact adversely to promote poor stall behavior.

The MacCready Gossamer Albatross human-powered canard is of special

interest because of unique stability and control characteristics. The air-

craft geometry shown in a three-view drawing (Fig. 12) was chosen to maximum

performance (low power required), and requirements for positive stability were

ignored. Providing adequate controllability, which was a prerequisite from

the onset, turned out to be difficult to achieve.15

designers, "...control of the large wing at these speeds proved to be an elu-

sive, challenging, and frequently disheartening quest." Because flight speeds

were low (3-5 m/sec), and calm air conditions were selected for flight tests,

control which would be required for upsets caused by turbulence was essen-

tially zero.

about all axes helped ease the controllability problem.

To quote one of the

The fact that the aircraft turned out to have neutral stability

Pitch control of the canard surface was adequate, but only over a narrow

speed range between minimum power speed ( 3 to 5 m/sec) and that for maximum

trim lift capability (6 to 8 m/sec).

wing to reduce trim drag. This resulted in the wing stalling first without

Canard incidence was set lower than the

19



warning at about 10 mph.

control produced a slow stall recovery with an altitude loss of about 10 ft.

Penetrations to higher AOA (more dynamic stall) resulted in a higher sink rate

(parachute-like) which could not be arrested sufficiently to prevent damage

when performed near the ground. Pitch dynamics, although neutrally stable,

Maximum power (hard pedaling) and forward pitch

presented no control problems primarily because of high pitch damping.

Directional stability was essentially zero to slightly negative, which in

effect was beneficial to improve turn entries. The addition of more vertical

area, .increasing directional stability and yaw damping, did little to improve

the lateral control (turn capability) problem, which essentially paced devel-

opment of the vehicle.

turn entry could not be obtained by conventional techniques. Spoiler deflec-

tion at the wing tip momentarily caused a small yawing velocity, which was

heavily damped, and the increased drag was unacceptable.

tips proved to be very ineffective in producing bank angle change, largely

because of apparent mass effects which increased the apparent moment of iner-

tia by a factor of five over the actual mass moment of inertia.

words, the normal force produced by aileron deflection had to move (and accel-

erate) a cylinder of air equal to the wingspan in rolling the vehicle about

the longitudinal axis--essentially very difficult at the low dynamic pressure

available at cruise speeds.

Bank angle control to correct for turbulence and for

Ailerons at the wing

In other

The method of obtaining turn entry by tilting (rolling) the canard had

been used in the very early years of flight, and this method proved effective

for the Gossamer Albatross in coordinated (yaw-roll) heading changes up to

20'.

unsatisfactory because of adverse yaw-roll coupling, which increased sideslip

and undesirable drag forces.

Attempts to obtain larger heading changes by canard tilt alone were

Combining wing warp with canard tilt provide a

20



satisfactory means for large heading changes.

techniques were required, the large "apparent" damping helped provide docile

flight behavior.

Although nonlinear control

Recently, projected fighter aircraft designs such as the Saab JAS39

Cripen, the U . K . ACA, the French ACX, and the IAI Lavi use a variation of the

canard surface in a "close-coupled" arrangement. The foreplane is close-

coupled when it is placed a relatively short distance ahead and slightly above

the main wing such that the wake (vortices) shed from the lifting canard

reenergize the flow over the inner portions of the wing.

press vortex bursting, thereby promoting more linear lift and pitching moments

to high AOA beyond the nominal C . In particular, the delta wing planform

which offers lower wave drag over a wide range of Mach numbers can benefit

from the canard by providing better lift distributing (higher L/D) in tran-

sonic flow conditions and increased usable lift in takeoff and landing.

This tends to sup-

Lmax

The delta planform for fighters originated in Germany during WW I1 on the

Other countries soon used this planform which offered good high-speedE 163.

(supersonic) potential. The low-aspect delta planform has disadvantages in

landing because of its low lift curve slope. Large pitch attitude is required

to generate desirable values of lift for landing. On approach, pitch attitude

is constrained by pilot visibility and ground geometry clearance, and unless

very low wing loading is employed, high approach speeds are required. Camber-

ing the delta to increase lift at a given AOA by trailing edge flaps normally

has a fundamental limitation in trimming the increased nose-down pitching

moment.

the Viggin fighter.

This can be overcome by using the canard (foreplane) as employed on

One of the first fighter delta configurations to use the close-coupled

canard is the Saab Viggin,16 which made its first flight in February 1967.

21



This aircraft required high Mach number performance for its interceptor role

combined with good low-speed capability to allow its use on short runways or

roads in Sweden. A three-view drawing of the Viggin (Fig. 13) shows geometric

features which have been carefully selected to accomplish these goals.

wing is low-aspect-ratio with the outer panels swept 60° for low wave drag at

high supersonic speeds.

pitching moment characteristics in the downwash of the canard in the transonic

range.

are deflected down for low-speed operation, their effectiveness is increased

by using blowing boundary layer control.

carefully selected to provide high-maximum-lift and reliable flow behavior to

high AOA as well as at large sideslip angles.

fixed.

and is therefore not a maneuvering (pitch) control.

of the canard flap, a mid position for takeoff and full-down for landing.

These positions are actuated by the landing gear control level; thus the pilot

work load is minimized--the flap is mechanically connected to the landing gear

lever.

The

The inner wing panels use less sweep to improve

Elevons are used on the wing for roll and pitch control. The elevons

The canard is low-aspect-ratio also,

The canard incidence is

The rear surface or flap is movable to provide only a trim function

There are two positions

An interesting design consideration of the canard was a requirement to

remain unstalled over a larger AOA range than the main wing. Thus, instead of

providing the usual passive stall limiting where the canard stalled before the

wing, its primary function was to enhance overall lift to reduce touchdown

speeds.

(trapezoidal) planform and placement (close-coupled and above) related to the

main wing.

conditions such that C

This was achieved by wind tunnel testing to determine a suitable

Upwash from the main wing provided favorable (interference) flow

of the canard was increased by 40% and the AOALmax

22



for C

approach.

for the aircraft extended well beyond that used in landingLmax

The low-speed characteristics of this configuration are considered to be

satisfactory.

which produced an unacceptable nose-up trim change.

Initially, a reduction in stability occurred at AOA of 8",

This was caused by flow

separation at the outer wing panel. A sawtooth (notch) leading edge modifica-

tion cured the problem, and pitch stability is linear up to 30" AOA .

occurs slightly above AOA of 30" after which a small pitch instability

(pitch-up) takes place followed by a stable slope out to very large (90")

AOA . Both CN and C are unstable beyond 30" AOA. Vortices shed from the

canard at high AOA strongly influenced flow at the vertical tail and lateral

directional stability changed.

C'ma,

0 '0

Improvements in lateral/directional character-

istics were achieved by reducing dihedral of the canard from 10" to Oo.

Touchdowns are made in the AOA range of 12" to 16".

control deteriorates because of low Dutch roll damping and power response

problems associated with flying on the back side of the power required

Beyond 16" flight path

curve. Studies have been made for improving flight path control by using the

canard flap in conjunction with the elevons for direct lift control.

aircraft can be flown comfortably to 25" AOA; departure tendencies occur

beyond 38" AOA.

The

The high-speed performance of this canard aircraft is strongly affected

by the tradeoff between stability and performance.

determined by the wing/fuselage pitching moment.

therefore requires that the c.g. be located such that zero or low positive

tail loads are needed.

provide positive pitch stability, adequate control power for more wheel lift-

off, and for maneuvering at supersonic speeds.

Subsonic trim drag is

Optimum subsonic trim drag

For an aft-tail fighter aircraft, the tail is sized to

The same sized tail placed

23



forward at the same moment arm provides similar control power for more wheel

lift-off; however, pitch stability has changed sign. Thus, the canard operat-

ing in the upwash of the wing is destabilizing and the c.g. must be moved for-

ward for a stable

significant proportion of the total lift, roughly 155, with a corresponding

induced drag penalty. Going to supersonic speeds, the aerodynamic center

moves aft approximately 15% mean aerodynamic chord for this wing planform.

This increase in stability further increases the up-load requirement of the

canard, with severe trim and maneuver drag penalties. If the c.g. is located

for minimum supersonic trim drag (approximately C = 01, the aircraft

becomes highly unstable upon returning to subsonic flight. The obvious solu-

tion is to provide artificial pitch stability, a feature not provided in the

Viggin control system. Thus the Viggin aircraft pays a high-speed performance

penalty for the canard which would be unacceptable if the aircraft were used

in an air superiority role.

C, .a

This obviously requires the canard to carry a

ma

The most recent example of canard technology is the Grumman X-29A for-

ward-swept-wing aircraft (Fig. 14). This advanced' ircraft features an aero-

elastically tailored wing, relaxed static stability (RSS), a digital fly-by-

wire (FBW) flight-control system, and a thin (5% thickness/chord) supercriti-

cal airfoil with discrete variable camber. Pitch control is obtained by an

all-moving (variable incidence) close-coupled canard. Strakes added to the

wing root trailing edge use flaps for pitch trim--helping to raise the nose

wheel for takeoff and increase overall lift in approach. Full-span flaperons

are used also. The forward-swept wing can be expected to provide signifi-

cantly higher LID maneuvering performance at transonic speeds and improved

low-speed handling. 7

24



Forward-swept wings on military aircraft originated in Germany in WW I 1

on the Junkers JU-287 bomber and later in the 1960s on the HFB-300 Hansa

business jet.

high AOA on a forward-swept wing, inboard lift suffers adversely.

leading edge vanes, or large amounts of wing twist delay flow separation to

some degree.

virtue of the downwash from the forward lifting surface.

maneuver fighter aircraft at very high AOA for good air-combat effectiveness

places special demands on the canard pitch control as described for the X-29A

in the following discussion.

Because of the natural inboard flow of the boundary layer at

Fences,

A close-coupled canard can unload the inboard wing area by

The current trend to

One design condition for the X-29A is Mach 0.9 at 30,000ft, with the

canard sized for maneuvering at this subsonic speed.

drag at supersonic speeds, RSS is used; the c.g. is located for neutral (wing/

fuselage) pitch stability. Positive (lifting) loads are provided by the

canard for supersonic maneuvering, thus improving flight efficiency. A 40%

forward shift of the aerodynamic center occurs for this planform in going from

supersonic to subsonic flight, resulting in a 35% negative static margin

(pitch instability). The short period has a time to double amplitude of

0.85 sec.

the pilot's inherent limitations in frequency response and phase lags. Arti-

ficial stability can be provided by a stability-augmentation system using AOA

and pitch-rate feedbacks.

desired pitch rate for maneuvering.

by the addition of pitch damping,

great extent upon good pitch control effectiveness over a large AOA range

discussed next.

To provide minimum trim

This degree of instability would normally be unflyable because of

A digital FBW flight-control system provides a

Overshoots or divergences are prevented

The success of this system depends to a

25



Wind tunnel tests18 indicate that with canard off, initial wing stall

occurs at the wing root at about 12" AOA. Pitching moment data show neutral

to slightly unstable static stability in the AOA range of 15 " to 40" . Addi-

tion of the canard significantly increases the level of instability in the AOA

range of 30" to 60°, depending upon canard incidence.

effectiveness is retained over a wide AOA range by virtue of the large (varia-

ble incidence) travel of the canard ( -60" to 30°), and the aircraft can be

trimmed over the AOA range from 10" to 70". The only deficiency noted was

marginal nose-up pitch control below 20" AOA because of canard stall.

fixed-incidence canard would stall and lose trim capability over this large

AOA range. Since the strake flaps provided constant pitching moments over the

entire AOA range, they could be programmed to complement canard control.

Good pitch-control

8

The canard, by virtue of its flow interaction with the wing, influences

the lateral/directional stability and control characteristics.

tests show a degradation in both lateral and directional static stability at

high canard deflections due to a blanketing of flow over the inboard portion

of the wing. At lower canard deflections, the canard enhanced lateral and

directional stability up to 30" AOA. Lateral control was influenced by

canard-induced wing-flow changes.

tiveness was improved in the AOA range of 10" to 60" as a result of favorable

flow effects from the canard over the inboard portion of the wing. At large

negative (nose-down) deflections, lateral control effectiveness was reduced,

presumably because of inboard wing stall resulting from adverse canard flow

(decreased downwash).

influenced by canard deflection.

markedly when inboard wing flow deteriorated when nose-down canard deflections

Wind tunnel

At low canard deflections aileron effec-

Directional stability and control effectiveness was

Rudder-control effectiveness decreased

26



were used.

unsatisfactory.

Directional control above 40" AOA would be expected to be

As previously discussed for the XP-55 aircraft, tumbling, a sustained

autorotative pitching gyration, was identified as a potential problem for the

X-29A aircraft.

canard control, and high pitch agility requirements.

an X-29A model19 in a high AOA condition with wing flaps down, strake flaps

down, and canard deflected - 6 O O (full nose-down) to simulate a stall recovery

(see Ref. 10). When released from a nose-high (AOA = - 1 8 0 O ) position, the

model underwent a nose-down autorotative pitching motion. The model exhibited

complex cyclic variations in linear and angular rates varying from

20-200°/sec. Asymmetry in control settings caused unusual gyrations out of

the pitch plane. Although this aircraft has large pitch-control power,

variations in canard deflection did not alter the tumbling behavior or result

in recovery.

effective in damping the motion, suggesting their use as a method of control-

ling tumble. Although the model tests indicated a tumble tendency with con-

trols fixed, it is unlikely that the highly augmented X-29A control system

would allow pitch angular excursions to build up to the point where tumbling

Tumbling susceptibility is accentuated by effects of RSS,

Tests were conducted on

Deflection of the strake flaps to oppose the tumbling were

would occur.

Concluding Remarks

A review of stability and control characteristics of canard configura-

tions showed the need for careful consideration to design details to ensure

satisfactory handling qualities. The greatest challenge was the need to pro-

vide good pitch stability characteristics and adequate pitch-control power in

27



the stall and post-stall regions.

accurate control of c.g. position is required to provide the beneficial pas-

sive stall AOA limiting inherent in the canard layout. Modern control tech-

nology should benefit future canard designs to a greater advantage by allowing

the use of relaxed static stability (RSS) without compromising handling

qualities.

Compared to conventional designs, a more

28



References

'Lennon, A., CANARD - A Revolution in Flight, Aviation Publishers,

September 1984.

2McCeer, T. and Kroo, I., "A Fundamental Comparison of Canard and Conven-

tional Configurations," Stanford University, Stanford, California. AIAA

Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20, No. 1 1 , November 1983.

3Rediess, H. A. et al., "Recent Flight Test Results on Minimum Longi-

tudinal Handling Qualities for Transport Aircraft," presented at the FAUSST

VI11 Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 1971.

4Wasserman, R. and Mitchell, J. F. , "In-Flight Simulation of Minimum

Longitudinal Stability for Large Delta-Wing Transports in Landing Approach and

Touchdown," AFFDL-TR-72-143, February 1973.

5Warner, E. P. and Norton, F. H., "Preliminary Report on Free Flight

Tests," NACA Report 70, 1920.

%oule, H. A . , "Preliminary Investigation of the Flying Qualities of

Airplanes," NACA Report 700, 1940.

7McFarland, M., ed., The Papers of Wilber and Orville Wright, McCraw-

Hill, New York, 1953.

8Culick, F. E. C. and Jex, H. R., "Aerodynamics, Stability and Control of

the 1903 Wright Flyer," Project Report WF84/09-1, Systems Technology, Inc.,

Paper No. 359, September 20, 1984.

9Perkins, C. D., "The Development of Airplane Stability and Control

Technology," 1969 von Karman Lecture, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, July-August

1970, pp. 290-301.

"Boyne, W. J., Col. UASF (Ret), "Weird Wonderful Airplanes," Air Force

Magazine, 1 June 1975.

29



llStone, . W., Jr. and Bryant, R. L., "Summary of Results of Tumbling

Investigations Made in the Langley 20-Foot Free-Spinning Tunnel on 14 Dynamic

Models," NACA RM No. L8J28, 1943.

12Rutan, B., "Tales of the Three E Z ' S , ' ~ Sport Aviation, February 1980,

pp. 34-39.

l3Yip, L. P., "Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Full-scale Canard-

Configured General Aviation Airplane, ' NASA TP-2382, March, 1985.

14Chambers, J. R., Yip, L. P., and Moul, T. M., "Wind-Tunnel Investiga-

tion of an Advanced General Aviation Canard Configuration," NASA Langley

Research Center TM-85760, April 1984.

15Jex, H. R. and Mitchell, D. G., "Stability and Control of the Gossamer

Human-Powered Aircraft by Analysis and Flight Test,l* NASA CR-3627, October

1982.

16Klinker, 0. and Dahlstrom, E., "SAAB Viggin and Its First Test Flight,"

SETP 12th Symposium Proceedings, September 26-28, 1968.

171shmael, S. D. and Wierzbarowski, T., "X-29 Initial Flight Test

Results," The Society of Experimental Test Pilots, 29 Symposium Proceedings,

September 25-28, 1985

"Murri, D. G., Nguyen, L. T., and Grafton, S. B., "Wind-Tunnel Free-

Flight Investigation of a Model of a Forward-Swept-Wing Fighter Configura-

tion," NASA TP-2230, February 1984.

'I9Whipple, R. D., Croom, M. A., and Faars, S. P., "Preliminary Results Of

Experimental and Analytical Investigations of the Tumbling Phenomenon for an

Advanced Configuration," AIAA Paper 84-2108, 984.



Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Summary of pilot comments on dynamic stability.

Fig. 2 Pilot rating vs time to double amplitude.

Fig. 3 Two views of Wright 1903 Flyer.

Fig. 4 Three views of Curtiss XP-55.

Fig. 5 Curtiss XP-55 in flight.

Fig. 6 Inverted crash landing of Curtiss XP-55.

Fig. 7 Three views of VariEze model.

Fig. 8 Pitching-moment characteristics of VariEze model.

Fig. 9 Three views of PAT-1 model.

Fig. 10 Pitching moment characteristics of PAT-1 model for aft c.g. location,

power off.

Fig. 1 1

c.g. location.

Effect of elevator deflection on deep-stall trim condition with aft

Fig. 12 Three views of Gossamer Albatross.

31



F i g . 13 T h re e v ie ws o f Saab V i g g e n c a n a r d f i g h t e r .

F i g . 14 T h re e v ie ws of Crumman X-29A f i g h t e r .

32



10

8

2

N'

K-

E

$ 6

3'

$ 4

a

2

W

K

> 2I-

ma

4-I-$ 0-I-at;

-2

-4

TRIMS OK. MANEUVERING

CAUSES OBJECTIONABLE

SUSTAINING OSCILLATION.

,

EASY TO TRIM.

EXCELLENT CONTROL

IN TURNS, CLIMBS,

AND DESCENTS.GOOD RESPONSE

FOR TRANSPORTS.

TRIM DIFFICULT. CONTROL

A LITTLE SENSITIVE. TURNS

OK. DIFFICULT TO SET UP

11I 4

CANNOT TRIM.

MANEUVERINGRAPID DIVERGENCE REQUIRES CON-

. CONTROL REQUIRES TINUAL CONTROLCOMPLETE CONCEN- BUT CRUISE

TRATION. POTENT- TASKS CAN BE

IALLY DANGEROUS. PERFORMED. OKAS FAILURE MODE.

-1 0 1 2 3

DAMPING PARAMETER, 23-w,, rad/sec2

F i g . 1

33



0

1

2

3

4

E

E

A

#

z

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

TIME TO DOUBLE AMPLITUDE , T2 , eca

F i g . 2

34



RA

I ENGINE6'-9"

RAIL

f .5'-10"

35



F i g . 4

36



r- A

F ig . 5

37



ORGINAL PAGE rs

OF POOR QUALITY

F i g . 6

38



FS (161.51

LEADING EDGE-

c

C

.90"

L. 130"

FS (99)

WL (19.5)

F ig . 7

39



C H A N G EC A N A R D

0 ON

o O FFE .40

k-- .2

5G o

IJJ-.2

E+ -.4

5

U

U

E -.60

? -.8W2

-1.00

-1.2

c - - - -

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45a, e!J

F i g . 8

40



W L

FS -3.7 FS 83.9 FS 7.7 FS49.3

IFS 7.7 Fs 24-8 Ig.o-+--gr&

t

F i g . 9

41



.6

.4

.2

c m-.2

-.4

-.6

-.8 I I I I I I I I I

I-

0 .

-

-4

0-- h d

-

-

--10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

ANGLE OF ATTACK, deg

F i g . 10

42



F i g . 11

43



F i g . 12

44



I

F i g . 13

45



F i g . 14

46



1. Report No. 2. Government Accarion No.

NASA TM-88354

4. Title and Subtitle

A LOOK AT HANDLING QUALITIES OF CANARDCONFIGURATIONS

3. Recipient's Catalog No .

5. Report Date

7. Author(s1

Seth B. Anderson

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s1)

Canard configurations

I

18. Distribution StatementUnl mi ed

Performing Organization

A-86332Report No .

10 . Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035

~~~ ~~

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, DC 20546

Technical Memorandum

14 . Sponsoring Agency CodeI 505-43-01

15. Supplementary Notes

Point of Contact: Seth B. Anderson, Ames Research Center, M/S 243-1Moffett Field, CA 94035 (415) 694-5576 or FTS 464-5576

16. Abstract

The first human-powered flight was achieved by a canard-configuredaircraft (Wright Brothers).varying degrees of success over the years, the tail-aft configuration hasdominated the aircraft market for both military and civil use.

reviews the development of several canard aircraft with emphasis on stabil-ity and control, handling qualities, and operating problems. The resultsshow that early canard concepts suffered adversely in flight behavior ,

because of a lack of understanding of the sensitivities of these concepts

to basic stability and control principles. Modern canard designs have beenmade competitive with tail-aft configurations by using appropriate handlingqualities design criteria.

Although other canard concepts were flown with

This paper

Stability and controlHandling qualitiesAerodynamics Subject Category - 02

handling qualites of canard

Documents